ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2024
Predicting the risk stratification of gastrointestinal stromal tumors using machine learning-based ultrasound radiomics.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Many Faces of Intestinal Tumors in Adults, Including the Primary Role of CT Imaging in Emergencies and the Important Role of Cross-Sectional Imaging: A Pictorial Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Risk stratification system of gastrointestinal stromal tumors under EUS elastography based on artificial intelligence.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to use conventional ultrasound features, ultrasound radiomics, and machine learning algorithms to establish a predictive model to assess the risk of post-surgical recurrence of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 230 patients with pathologically diagnosed GISTs. Radiomic features were extracted from manually annotated images. Radiomic features plus conventional ultrasound features were selected using the SelectKbest analysis of variance and stratified tenfold cross-validation recursive elimination methods. Finally, five different machine learning algorithms (logistic regression [LR], support vector machine [SVM], random forest [RF], extreme gradient boosting [XGBoost], and multilayer perceptron [MLP]) were established to predict risk stratification of GISTs. The predictive performance of the established model was mainly evaluated based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) and accuracy, whereas the predictive performance of the optimal machine learning algorithm and a radiologist's subjective assessment were compared using McNemar's test.
resultsSeven radiomics features and one conventional ultrasound feature were selected to construct the machine learning models for GIST risk classification. The mentioned five machine learning models were able to predict the malignant potential of GISTs. LR and SVM outperformed other classifiers on the test set, with LR achieving an accuracy of 0.852 (AUC, 0.881; sensitivity, 0.871; specificity, 0.826) and SVM achieving an accuracy of 0.852 (AUC, 0.879; sensitivity, 0.839; specificity, 0.870), and proved significantly better than the radiologist (accuracy, 0.691; sensitivity, 0.645; specificity, 0.813).
conclusionMachine learning-based ultrasound radiomics features are able to noninvasively predict the biological risk of GISTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37798591What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.